Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?

[OneSheep]

Response to chefmomster, cont’d

1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:

I picked this one also because it talks about the presence of natural law. Yes, it is present, but as I have said on other posts, the development of the conscience is a life-long process. It is there, but we are not perfectly in touch with it. No one has a perfect conscience, except Jesus, our Lord.

I apologize, I did not respond to the last section of your post. It did not bring up anything new. We are still down to the most basic observation. I am saying that I have never observed anyone K&WRG, and you have not. The CCC does not directly contest my observation, Chefmomster.
If you are saying that someone, anyone, has ever knowingly and willingly rejected God, or believe that there is a scenario where such could occur, please provide proof, and I will listen, and we can scrutinize what is going on in the person’s mind, as we did the adulterous man, long, long ago, in the dark ages of this lengthy thread.

Oh, and I had some final thoughts about the definition of mortal sin. It is observable that there is a range of sins, from worst to least awful. In addition, it is reasonable to conclude that the worst sins should get the most awful punishment ever, that there should be a way of structuring the definition of a sin in a way that a person who does the worst sin really, really deserves, and gets, the worst possible punishment.

That said, it may seem a little silly to define a mortal sin in such a way that it never happens. Our conscience pushes for punishment, and it just seems like some people deserve the worst, and there has to be a way of writing the definitions in a way that no one can escape the worst of punishment when having done the worst of sin. I can understand this, it makes sense.

The problem is, it does not make sense in terms of what happened at the crucifixion. Those people that hung him did something really bad, they killed God, they killed His son! Yet, he forgave. So, as the conscience pushes toward punishment of such worst, God tells us something much different. The God underlying says “I forgive you”. How can all of this work with the whole idea of mortal sin in the first place?

How can anyone fall from a state of grace? Does anyone fall from the reader’s state of grace? If so, forgiveness is called for. Does God ever withhold forgiveness? No, He does not, He did not when we killed His son. Does man always accept this forgiveness? Again, no, he does not, but when he does not, he does not know what he is doing, just as we did not know what we were doing when we hung Him there!

All great questions for another thread. Feel free to start one and invite me.

For now, though, I am still searching for that counterexample. Vico, maybe…?

Thanks, chefmomster, for all of your efforts. I apologize for being unclear sometimes. I really do think that we mostly agree on stuff. For example, yes, discipline and obedience are called for, we are to obey, to avoid sin. Does my view of mortal sin make it seem like the punishment for violation is less harsh than it “should” be? If that is the case, I tried to address that above.

God Bless your week!

 

[Aloysium]

We are having a serious and generally pretty respectful discussion on the doctrine of Mortal Sin. We see it as an opportunity to deepen our understanding and increase our faith. When it ceases to be helpful, it will come to an end on its own.

You are unhappy with me. Your posts are great, as is your defense of this thread and its contributors (among whom I am included).
I do believe you would agree that this is not just a discussion, that what is at stake has to do with the age-old battle for, and within, the human soul.
Clearly, your faith is deepening, but some people, at least for the moment, appear lost and more interested in justifying their own views rather than seeking that same end.

I am quoting you, as this allows me to refer to and elaborate on my earlier comments.
Yesterday’s readings will help me clarify; they are:

• Ezekiel 33:7-9
• Matthew 18:15-20
• Romans 13:8-10

In Ezekiel we learn that if God says “to someone wicked, “Evil- doer, you are to die,” and you do not speak to warn the wicked person to renounce such ways, the wicked person will die for this guilt, but I shall hold you responsible for the death.”
We are responsible if we do not pass on the word of God. The Church teaches about mortal sin to warn people.
If someone conversely asserts that there is no such thing, that person would become responsible if others act on this.
I believe you would agree that if we hear someone preaching in this manner, we are responsible for letting them know.

This brings us to Matthew, where we learn that we are to tell someone first, if they do not listen we bring witnesses, and if they will not listen to them, we are to refer them to the Church.
This has happened here. Your recent responses were comprehensive and to the point.
What are we to do with people who do not accept the truth, not even when it is the Church speaking? We are to treat them like the Gentiles, tax collectors and, I might add, romance novelists .

In the end, as Peter writes, “. . . You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet, and all the other commandments that there are, are summed up in this single phrase: You must love your neighbour as yourself. Love can cause no harm to your neighbour, and so love is the fulfilment of the Law.” It does us far better to look up to the heavens.

 

[chefmomster2]

You are unhappy with me. Your posts are great, as is your defense of this thread and its contributors (among whom I am included).
I do believe you would agree that this is not just a discussion, that what is at stake has to do with the age-old battle for, and within, the human soul.
Clearly, your faith is deepening, but some people, at least for the moment, appear lost and more interested in justifying their own views rather than seeking that same end.

I am quoting you, as this allows me to refer to and elaborate on my earlier comments.
Yesterday’s readings will help me clarify; they are:

• Ezekiel 33:7-9
• Matthew 18:15-20
• Romans 13:8-10

In Ezekiel we learn that if God says “to someone wicked, “Evil- doer, you are to die,” and you do not speak to warn the wicked person to renounce such ways, the wicked person will die for this guilt, but I shall hold you responsible for the death.”
We are responsible if we do not pass on the word of God. The Church teaches about mortal sin to warn people.
If someone conversely asserts that there is no such thing, that person would become responsible if others act on this.
I believe you would agree that if we hear someone preaching in this manner, we are responsible for letting them know.

This brings us to Matthew, where we learn that we are to tell someone first, if they do not listen we bring witnesses, and if they will not listen to them, we are to refer them to the Church.
This has happened here. Your recent responses were comprehensive and to the point.
What are we to do with people who do not accept the truth, not even when it is the Church speaking? We are to treat them like the Gentiles, tax collectors and, I might add, romance novelists .

In the end, as Peter writes, “. . . You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet, and all the other commandments that there are, are summed up in this single phrase: You must love your neighbour as yourself. Love can cause no harm to your neighbour, and so love is the fulfilment of the Law.” It does us far better to look up to the heavens.

Thanks for your clarification. I agree. (Our homily at my Church was great yesterday!) I think it was your phrase “wallowing in sin” and your brevity that gave a wrong impression. It seemed to suggest we were all wallowing by our very discussion of the topic. I am glad that wasn’t your intemt. I appreciate your posts very much.

I believe that any position that reinterprets, redefines, or restates Church teaching is in error. As the Church indicates, mortal sin is a “radical possibility”. For some people, believing that mortal sin is likely to be mitigated in virtually every case creates a false security that threatens their souls. It also sets up a system that is incredibly complicated with far too many exceptions, rules, and complicated expectations. They may lose faith believing they cannot figure it all out.

What is also missing in this erroneous approach is the understanding that if we find ourselves out of compliance with Church teaching we are obliged as faithful Catholics to study the doctrine, pray, and inform our conscience on the official teaching until it becomes interiorized. We rely with docile obedience of faith on the authority of the Church, or we delude ourselves that what we believe is acceptable to the Lord.

Thank you for your compliment on my summation. I pray that my argument is faithful to Church teaching and that the Holy Spirit was editing for me!

Have a blessed week!

(And I’ll add romance novelists to my prayer intentions! )

 

[chefmomster2]

I am answering just a few specific questions.

Response to chefmomster, cont’d
In addition, it is reasonable to conclude that the worst sins should get the most awful punishment ever…

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

And this: The . . . Council of Florence (1439) declared the souls of the perfectly just clearly behold the Triune and One God as he is, but corresponding to the difference of their merits, the one more perfectly than the other. The Council of Trent defined that the justified person merits an increase of the heavenly glory by good works. (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 479)

The Union Councils of Lyons and of Florence declared that the souls of the damned are punished with unequal punishments . . . This is probably intended to assert not merely a specific difference in the punishment of original sin and of personal sins, but also a difference in the degree of punishment for personal sins [cf. Matt. 11:22; Luke 20:47]. . . . St. Augustine teaches "In their wretchedness the lot of some of the damned will be more tolerable than that of others. Justice demands that the punishment be commensurate with the guilt."

there has to be a way of writing the definitions in a way that no one can escape the worst of punishment when having done the worst of sin.

No one can! It is only misinterpretation that leads to the sense that this is untrue of the Church Teaching.

Our conscience pushes for punishment

1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the **human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act **…

Conscience discerns whether acts are good or evil, not the need for punishment.

Does God ever withhold forgiveness?

1864 "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin."136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

Bless you!

 

[OneSheep]

Good morning, Chefmom. I very much wanted you to answer these questions for me, and I will post it again, because it is quite pertinent to this thread. Please, give it a try. It is all speculative, no “right or wrong” answers.

1. Did the crowd who hung Jesus sin?
2. What would the crowd have to have known in order to know what they were doing when they hung Jesus?

1858 Grave matter is specified …

Yes, it makes sense. There are some other problematic issues you did not address, but it makes sense.

And this: The . . . Council of Florence (1439) declared the souls of the perfectly just clearly behold the Triune and One God as he is, but corresponding to the difference of their merits, the one more perfectly than the other. The Council of Trent defined that the justified person merits an increase of the heavenly glory by good works. (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 479)

Here there is a bit of a contradiction with “the last shall be first”, but more so the parable of the workers in the vineyard.

Good works are also their own reward, though. Our conscience rewards us with a feeling of righteousness and fulfillment, and this is reflected in the Council’s declaration. The more good stuff we do, the more fulfillment will be experienced, generally speaking. That is, unless we are slaves to our consciences, doing good at our own personal expense to the degree that we harm ourselves in some way. Some people do run themselves ragged, and then they are not so pleasant to be around!

The Union Councils of Lyons and of Florence declared that the souls of the damned are punished with unequal punishments . . . This is probably intended to assert not merely a specific difference in the punishment of original sin and of personal sins, but also a difference in the degree of punishment for personal sins [cf. Matt. 11:22; Luke 20:47]. . . . St. Augustine teaches "In their wretchedness the lot of some of the damned will be more tolerable than that of others. Justice demands that the punishment be commensurate with the guilt."

It makes sense that if in the afterlife we experience true vision, and really see all the harm we have done in our lives, finally knowing what we had done, then those who did the worst of evils will experience the most agony in such a revelation.

No one can! It is only misinterpretation that leads to the sense that this is untrue of the Church Teaching.

Jesus said, “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Some of those he addressed were much more responsible for his hanging there than others, but in my reading all were forgiven.

1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the **human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act **…

Conscience discerns whether acts are good or evil, not the need for punishment.

I lump desire to punish with the workings of the conscience. Desire to punish is so intertwined with our judging of others, etc., that it really seems to function as part of the whole. Desire to punish, like judging, is also a triggered reaction, not ordinarily a reasoned statement of will. People, when watching a movie with an “evil antagonist” have gut reactions, as do all of us when we see horrific things in the news. Our desire to punish, as well as the instantaneous recognition of “wrong”, are triggered reactions. This is the way a normally functioning conscience works, right?

1864 "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin."136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

At first glance, this does seem to indicate that Abba conditionally loves and forgives. However, a priest explained this to us in a way that made more sense in light of a God who Loves more than we can Imagine. I will paraphrase:

First of all, the realization of “salvation” is a here-and-now-phenomenon, not just an afterlife phenomenon. If a person refuses to forgive, clinging to grudges and negative feelings toward another, he will, by projection, never realize that God loves and forgives him. He will not experience the freedom that Jesus speaks of; he will be enslaved by his own unwillingness to forgive. In his refusal to forgive, he blocks out the redemption, the salvation, that Jesus speaks of in the here-and-now, as well as the life beyond. It is not a matter of God withholding forgiveness, it is a matter of the refusal forgive, refusing to enact an unconditional forgiveness modeled by Christ Himself from the cross!

I will add that if someone does such refusal, they do so having not a clue what they are doing, but they remain enslaved.

Bless you!

Thank you, I am blessed! For one thing, you are a blessing. I have no less than one of the most respectful, charitable people I have ever encountered on the CAF with whom to discuss this very important topic. Thank you, Chefmomster, I am certain that wherever you are, the place is blessed by your presence.

 

[OneSheep]

Oh, and my turn to “cut in”, with apologies:

I believe that any position that reinterprets, redefines, or restates Church teaching is in error. As the Church indicates, mortal sin is a “radical possibility”. For some people, believing that mortal sin is likely to be mitigated in virtually every case creates a false security that threatens their souls. It also sets up a system that is incredibly complicated with far too many exceptions, rules, and complicated expectations. They may lose faith believing they cannot figure it all out.

This, chefmomster, is one of the most important things you have said on this thread, and it needs to be highlighted.

I am reading that you are fearing that people will have a false security if they come to see their own goodness. If they come to the point of forgiving themselves, by seeing their own ignorance, their own innocence, then they will feel free to sin without any fear of consequence. However, the opposite is true. When one discovers their own ignorance, one moves past all of the self-condemnation and discovers the real beauty and wonder, the incredible value, of what God created, US! And when we see that value, we see so much more the importance of cherishing the well-being of our fellow man. Are you afraid that if you realized that mortal sin never happens, you would turn to sin yourself? No, chefmomster, your God-given conscience will continue to guide you. Love will be your guide, not fear, as love obviously guides so much of what you do and say.

Sin is truly never without consequence, the consequence is intrinsic. Anyone with a normal, healthy conscience is going to feel guilt and suffer consequence (hangovers, marriage breakup, societal laws, etc.) whether or not they come to understand and forgive themselves. Understanding why people sin does not lead to false security, it leads to real security and real forgiveness of the self and all others. And a very big part of that understanding is real-life application, investigation, and substantiation of the statement that Jesus himself made from the cross, that we do not know what we are doing.

There is no need to fear anymore. Rest in knowing that God loves and forgives you unconditionally. The yoke is easy and the burden light. The truth sets us free, free from worry and anxiety about the afterlife. The path is forgiveness. There is a leap to be made, yes, a scary leap. Try it for a day. You can always leap back.

That said, there is a path to take! A person who lives in fear of God is living an important part of the journey, and the fear is to be respected. A person who equates the conscience with God is living the journey, and their perspectives are just as Catholic as the person who has discovered the unconditionally loving God beneath the conscience. These perspectives all have their place. I am not saying that any of your statements are wrong, chefmomster. I continue to demonstrate that their is a different way of looking at it all when we come to forgive all we resent.

 

[Vico]

…?

1. You wrote: “If he had committed to remain in the faith unconditionally, he would not have fallen away…”
This is untrue since the state or quality of being dedicated to a cause without condition, does not preclude later failure.

2. You wrote: “So he wants to return to the sacraments, but he has done nothing?”
That is incorrect and is not what I wrote. I wrote “No, he has not the necessary resolve to repent, it is only a wish as explained: he is afraid of hell. There is a difference between wish (a desire) and volition.”

Some action is taken but there is not the resolve to avoid the near occasions of sin, and scandal, which is necessary to repentance.

3. You wrote: “Is this what is going on in his mind?”

No, it is not, rather He has a wish (a desire or hope for something to happen) to get out of it. From previous posts:
Post #758 from Aug 29:
“You always have the common example of the fallen away Catholic that marries without approval of the Church and then returns, and refuses to separate from the spouse, even without children, and knowing that it is gravely sinful, and no longer is able to receive communion and does not do so.”
Post #783, from Sep 1:
“No, it states that the person “returns” which means he has decided to resume practicing the faith.”
Post #793, from Sep 1:
“This person that had stopped actively practicing the Catholic faith, decides to return to actively practicing the Catholic faith, and knows that to receive the sacraments requires reconciliation with God and the Church. This person knows that it is not possible to receive Communion without first making a contrite confession. This person knows that it cannot happen until the proper disposition is acquired, which requires turning away from all gravely sinful actions, and that the current actions are gravely sinful. This person decides to separate from the spouse and to stop having marital relations, but then when it comes to actually doing it, does not do so thinking “I don’t want to give up the pleasure of conjugal relations”. Therefore the will to stop sinning is not present so a valid confession cannot be made. “
Post #797, from Sep 1:

“1. Does he believe he is living in sin, does he see that his relationship with his spouse somehow compromises his relationship with the Father?

• Yes, that was given.

1. He is thinking, “What I am doing is really wrong, and destines me away from God”.”
   Post #812, Sep 4:
   “He is not willing yes and no at the same time. No man can have two masters. He is willing no. He has a wish (a desire or hope for something to happen) to get out of it.

It is no because he willed himself into the sinful situation by first falling away from the faith (a sin against the first commandment) and then by marriage without approval of the Church (a sin against the first commandment) and then persisting in fornication (in the situation of near occasion of sin) and also involving scandal. Having been trained in the faith and accepting it when younger, he is aware of the Divine Law (which includes the natural law and ecclesial law).”
One summary, but not as explanatory as the foregoing posts is:

"I know that I have pridefully chosen to ignore the laws of the Church which is necessary for my salvation. I am weak in resisting the temptation of my civil marriage wife, but I do not want to separate. I wish to return to the sacraments and I hope and expect that I will not die before a convalidation”

 

[curtish1947]

Oh, and my turn to “cut in”, with apologies:

This, chefmomster, is one of the most important things you have said on this thread, and it needs to be highlighted.

I am reading that you are fearing that people will have a false security if they come to see their own goodness. If they come to the point of forgiving themselves, by seeing their own ignorance, their own innocence, then they will feel free to sin without any fear of consequence. However, the opposite is true. When one discovers their own ignorance, one moves past all of the self-condemnation and discovers the real beauty and wonder, the incredible value, of what God created, US! And when we see that value, we see so much more the importance of cherishing the well-being of our fellow man. Are you afraid that if you realized that mortal sin never happens, you would turn to sin yourself? No, chefmomster, your God-given conscience will continue to guide you. Love will be your guide, not fear, as love obviously guides so much of what you do and say.

Sin is truly never without consequence, the consequence is intrinsic. Anyone with a normal, healthy conscience is going to feel guilt and suffer consequence (hangovers, marriage breakup, societal laws, etc.) whether or not they come to understand and forgive themselves. Understanding why people sin does not lead to false security, it leads to real security and real forgiveness of the self and all others. And a very big part of that understanding is real-life application, investigation, and substantiation of the statement that Jesus himself made from the cross, that we do not know what we are doing.

There is no need to fear anymore. Rest in knowing that God loves and forgives you unconditionally. The yoke is easy and the burden light. The truth sets us free, free from worry and anxiety about the afterlife. The path is forgiveness. There is a leap to be made, yes, a scary leap. Try it for a day. You can always leap back.

That said, there is a path to take! A person who lives in fear of God is living an important part of the journey, and the fear is to be respected. A person who equates the conscience with God is living the journey, and their perspectives are just as Catholic as the person who has discovered the unconditionally loving God beneath the conscience. These perspectives all have their place. I am not saying that any of your statements are wrong, chefmomster. I continue to demonstrate that their is a different way of looking at it all when we come to forgive all we resent.

To calibrate a source allows one to know how much error is in it: One must calibrate Saints, and The Catechism, to see if they are infallible as some seem to think they are. Consider the Following:
In the fourth century, Augustine, trapped in the logic of his teaching on the necessity of baptism for salvation, consigned (we hope reluctantly) infants who died without baptism to the fires of hell, though he did grant that their pain was mitigated and not as harsh as those condemned for sins of their own initiative. Many theologians in the Middle Ages, in an attempt to show some respect for the authority of Augustine and yet some measure of common sense and compassion, postulated a middle state in which infants would experience natural happiness but would be deprived of the face-to-face vision of God.

Though limbo was never officially defined in any church council or document, it became, like other unchallenged elements of the Christian worldview, a part of the common teaching and almost universal catechesis of the church. Since the late 19th century, it was written on the psyche of every young Catholic through the Baltimore Catechism. For example, Baltimore Catechism No. 3 states, with its usual air of certainty: Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven (Q. 632). Most Catholics, of course, made no distinction between defined doctrines and what appeared in the catechism. It was all church teaching, to be accepted without question.
Please do not restate, the above to something it is not. That is too obvious. There is too much circular logic here as I understand circular logic. {Circular logic simply is, stating a fact as one which is not one, then using that fact as the truth.} Yes, I am worried about your constant restatements of other people statement. I am also worried about your huge amount of uncalibrated facts. You have even used the words of a Priest, in one of your statements.
Your brilliance is high, your substance (digging down to the real truth of what people say and mean is lacking. Intentionally or not, I cannot tell.) is low, and you use nothing of anyone’s facts as far as I can tell.
Am I wrong?
…Me…

 

[OneSheep]

Hello, Vico! I am sorry that it is taking so long for me to understand this particular person’s thinking. He seems a little scattered, but let me give it another shot.

1. You wrote: “If he had committed to remain in the faith unconditionally, he would not have fallen away…”

This is untrue since the state or quality of being dedicated to a cause without condition, does not preclude later failure.
​

If a person says, “I will love God and remain faithful to Him no matter what happens”, and has pondered all the possibilities for “what can happen” to draw him away from his faith, and resolved to be ready if and when one of these conditions occur, then he is only subject to blindness, indeed even blindness can be dealt with. If a person says “I will love God and remain faithful to Him as long as prayer is convenient and I feel like going to Church” he is much less committed, no? Now his relationship and faith is subject to conditions, as well as blindness.

So, let’s say that the quality of the dedication is an accurate predictor of the likelihood of his falling away. Good enough? Off topic, but worth a little sidebar. The less committed Catholic described is showing some ignorance, right? The less committed Catholic does not know the benefits of a more full commitment.​

 

[OneSheep]

Now, Vico, let us continue. I thank you again for your patience.

Vico:

[/INDENT]
2. You wrote: “So he wants to return to the sacraments, but he has done nothing?”
That is incorrect and is not what I wrote. I wrote “No, he has not the necessary resolve to repent, it is only a wish as explained: he is afraid of hell. There is a difference between wish (a desire) and volition.”

Some action is taken but there is not the resolve to avoid the near occasions of sin, and scandal, which is necessary to repentance.

3. You wrote: “Is this what is going on in his mind?”

No, it is not, rather He has a wish (a desire or hope for something to happen) to get out of it. From previous posts:
Post #758 from Aug 29:
“You always have the common example of the fallen away Catholic that marries without approval of the Church and then returns, and refuses to separate from the spouse, even without children, and knowing that it is gravely sinful, and no longer is able to receive communion and does not do so.”
Post #783, from Sep 1:
“No, it states that the person “returns” which means he has decided to resume practicing the faith.”
Post #793, from Sep 1:
“This person that had stopped actively practicing the Catholic faith, decides to return to actively practicing the Catholic faith, and knows that to receive the sacraments requires reconciliation with God and the Church. This person knows that it is not possible to receive Communion without first making a contrite confession. This person knows that it cannot happen until the proper disposition is acquired, which requires turning away from all gravely sinful actions, and that the current actions are gravely sinful. This person decides to separate from the spouse and to stop having marital relations, but then when it comes to actually doing it, does not do so thinking “I don’t want to give up the pleasure of conjugal relations”. Therefore the will to stop sinning is not present so a valid confession cannot be made. “

1. Does he believe he is living in sin, does he see that his relationship with his spouse somehow compromises his relationship with the Father?

• Yes, that was given.

1. He is thinking, “What I am doing is really wrong, and destines me away from God”.”

He is not willing yes and no at the same time. No man can have two masters. He is willing no. He has a wish (a desire or hope for something to happen) to get out of it.

It is no because he willed himself into the sinful situation by first falling away…
One summary, but not as explanatory as the foregoing posts is:

"I know that I have pridefully chosen to ignore the laws of the Church which is necessary for my salvation. I am weak in resisting the temptation of my civil marriage wife, but I do not want to separate. I wish to return to the sacraments and I hope and expect that I will not die before a convalidation”
​

You also said , from post 797,

Is he thinking that staying with his wife is more important than his relationship with God? - No.

So, I still think the fellow is rather torn, he is struggling. He seems quite unsure about himself. Thank you very much for the summary, it really helps consolidate and weed out the confusing elements.

Sorry, he is going to have to answer some more questions so that we can see with more clarity what is going on in his mind.

1. Why has he pridefully chosen to ignore the laws of the Church? If you prefer, explain the specific influence of the “pride”.

2, What makes him think that he will not die tomorrow? On what does he base such faith?

1. Does he know the benefits of having God in the center of his marriage? Specifically,
   A. Does he recognize the aspect of the 3-ply cord not easily broken?
   B. That in the couple’s combined and individual dedication to fidelity in Christ, they will much more likely avoid sin, especially adultery?
   C. That Jesus’ guidance to individuals, to avoid sin, to avoid subjugation to the appetites, to focus in on the primacy of Jesus and His commandments does nothing but strengthen and deepen the bond of marriage as well as lead to greater fulfillment in their lives and freedom from slavery?
   D. That upon having Jesus at the center of their marriage their (future) children will learn and gain this same freedom, freedom through discipline? Does he even appreciate the wonder and fulfillment of being a parent?
   E. Does he know that Jesus provides an example of unconditional love, a love that can be replicated in the married couple, in totally unconditional love and forgiveness of one another?
   F. Does he know the importance and benefit of prayer and relationship of the couple with Abba?

The specific questions are important to make a point: focus on the afterlife is missing out on a lot of the benefits of being a follower in the here-and-now, especially in marriage.

I did not know of God’s unconditional love and forgiveness until I pledged such to my dear wife. Only until I did so did I really “get it”. It is a shame that so many couples never understand the freedom and insight from such a commitment.

Thanks again, Vico. You are enlightening me to a different scenario. Let’s see where it goes!​

 

[Vico]

…

For 1, there were several things that lead to his downfall. He refused to believe what that Church taught about marriage with approval of the Church and he neglected those lessons. Therefore his heart was depraved so the practice of the faith was abandoned, forgetting about it so he would not feel so guilty. Also he began to depend more on reason which changed his dependency on God to himself and the authors he liked. The passions of pride and sensuality increased with the reading of books in which Faith was attacked and by listening to impious conversations.

For 2 he has no faith that he will not die tomorrow, he is only guessing.

Yes to all items under 3. He had received catechesis on marriage from the Church.

 

[OneSheep]

For 1, there were several things that lead to his downfall. He refused to believe what that Church taught about marriage with approval of the Church and he neglected those lessons. Therefore his heart was depraved so the practice of the faith was abandoned, forgetting about it so he would not feel so guilty. Also he began to depend more on reason which changed his dependency on God to himself and the authors he liked. The passions of pride and sensuality increased with the reading of books in which Faith was attacked and by listening to impious conversations.

For 2 he has no faith that he will not die tomorrow, he is only guessing.

Yes to all items under 3. He had received catechesis on marriage from the Church.

Good morning, Vico

We are narrowing in here, a bit. It is a little confusing because you are saying he refused to believe it, but on the other hand he felt guilty, which indicates that he did believe it.

I will proceed from the scenario that has heard the lessons but refused to believe. He knows what other people say, or what the Church says.

1. We as Catholics assert that what the Church says is the truth, we know it as truth.

Please choose one of these statements from his mind, or create your own:

“I know what the Church says about marriage is true, but I refuse to believe it.”
or
“I think that what the Church says about marriage is false, and that is why I refuse to believe it.”

For number 2, if he is only guessing that he will not die tomorrow, then he does not know whether or not he will die tomorrow. Given his complacency, we can already say that if he did die tomorrow, he did not know what he was doing. He was basing his destiny on a false assumption, an ignorance, not knowing that his demise would be sooner rather than later. This, however, is only one tiny part of his not knowing what he is doing. There is more to be discerned his ignorance and blindness, I think.

As for the benefits-of-marriage questions I asked, here they are again:

1. Does he know the benefits of having God in the center of his marriage? Specifically,
   A. Does he recognize the aspect of the 3-ply cord not easily broken?
   B. That in the couple’s combined and individual dedication to fidelity in Christ, they will much more likely avoid sin, especially adultery?
   C. That Jesus’ guidance to individuals, to avoid sin, to avoid subjugation to the appetites, to focus in on the primacy of Jesus and His commandments does nothing but strengthen and deepen the bond of marriage as well as lead to greater fulfillment in their lives and freedom from slavery?
   D. That upon having Jesus at the center of their marriage their (future) children will learn and gain this same freedom, freedom through discipline? Does he even appreciate the wonder and fulfillment of being a parent?
   E. Does he know that Jesus provides an example of unconditional love, a love that can be replicated in the married couple, in totally unconditional love and forgiveness of one another?
   F. Does he know the importance and benefit of prayer and relationship of the couple with Abba?

Your answer was yes, he knew all of this. I’m sorry, Vico, but I have to be a bit repetitive here. Sure, a kid may hear all of this stuff, but it goes in one ear and out the other. The question is, Does he know it as truth? No need to answer here, answering #1 on this post will suffice.

Unless you are an unmarried person, you would have to admit that the “knowing” of the truth of A-F is much more real, much more solid, for a person who is actually married. Anyone who simply hears the words has only a very superficial knowledge of all the benefits. Only a person who is married can know, in a much fuller way, the benefits of a union with Christ at the center.

2, Do you agree, or do you not? Is there or is there not a much deeper “knowing” that comes from experience?

Have you ever been to the Grand Canyon? Do photos do it justice?(If you have never been, the answer is no, absolutely not). One knows practically nothing of the Grand Canyon without standing on the rim and taking in its glory.

Thank you, Vico, and have a great day!

 

[Vico]

…

• You wrote: “It is a little confusing because you are saying he refused to believe it, but on the other hand he felt guilty, which indicates that he did believe it.”

A. Don’t be confused, it is a matter of timing. There was belief and a sense of guilt therefore the forgetting with the falling. He first professed and believed the faith.

• You wrote: “Is there or is there not a much deeper “knowing” that comes from experience?”

A. There is a word for that called learning. He learned what the Church teaches at a basic level, enough to know the character of sinful acts, and the result. Yet he choose to lives a life of fornication and invalidly attempted matrimony.

• You wrote: “The question is, Does he know it as truth?”

A. Yes, He learned what the Church teaches and that it is the truth, and accepted it. Definition of know: “be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information”.

• You wrote: “Please choose one of these statements from his mind, or create your own:”

A. Marriage was not the first fallen step, first comes missing Sunday and then not confessing sins. Later comes fornication, then much later comes invalid attempt of marriage. Early it was “I know what the Church teaches about marriage, and accept it as the truth.” After the heart is corrupted it became “I have my own ideas on marriage.”

• For number 2, if he is only guessing that he will not die tomorrow, then he does not know whether or not he will die tomorrow."

A. Only the Father know the time of death. He chooses poorly due to depravity of heart.

He is always bound to avoid the near occasions of sin, and falls from the first time he willfully stops resisting temptation. As we learned from the Church, God always gives his faithful the sufficient strength to avoid grave sin.

 

[OneSheep]

Good morning, Vico!

Nice morning here. It is good to be alive.

• You wrote: “It is a little confusing because you are saying he refused to believe it, but on the other hand he felt guilty, which indicates that he did believe it.”

A. Don’t be confused, it is a matter of timing. There was belief and a sense of guilt therefore the forgetting with the falling. He first professed and believed the faith.

• You wrote: “Is there or is there not a much deeper “knowing” that comes from experience?”

A. There is a word for that called learning. He learned what the Church teaches at a basic level, enough to know the character of sinful acts, and the result. Yet he chose to lives a life of fornication and invalidly attempted matrimony.

Are you saying that the man is fully aware of the character of all sinful acts? As much as a person who has suffered? When is “enough” sufficient? It is sufficient when the person incorporates the acts into his conscience, when he has a gut reaction to the act. Even the gut reaction develops. A child’s gut may say “I made God mad”. An adult’s gut would say, “that was really hurtful”.

With learning comes knowledge. So, when we suffer we learn more, we become more aware. Recently I heard a witness testimony by a young man. As a teenager, he was involved in Church youth programs, but upon getting in with the wrong group, he gave in to drugs, loose women, and so forth. Eventually, he was arrested for driving under the influence; he woke up and realized that it was all for nothing. There was an emptiness, a lack of depth and meaning to his life. The high-life had become a routine, empty game. He did not know what he was doing.

Now, he realized more about what he was doing. What happened? Experience. Now he much more knows the sinful character of the acts, that he was a slave to his appetites. He learned that being a slave leads to suffering. He knows much more about the wrongness. Did he every K&WRG? No, not in intent. Sure, he knew that the Church said what he was doing was wrong, but he was unconvinced of the wrongness.

Are you beginning to see that there is a huge range of “awareness”? Between great awareness and unawareness there is a knowledge gap. Learning, a life-time process, fills the knowledge gap. Please remember, I am not trying to allow the man to “get away with sin.” That is not the point. We are trying to determine the level of his ignorance. All of us are ignorant, to some degree. No one knows the harm of a specific abortion as much as the woman who has had one for convenience and later realizes the humanity she destroyed.

Please answer the question, Vico:

1. Is there, or is there not, a much deeper “knowing” that comes from experience? Please, simply answer the question.

• You wrote: “The question is, Does he know it as truth?”

A. Yes, He learned what the Church teaches and that it is the truth, and accepted it. Definition of know: “be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information”.

• You wrote: “Please choose one of these statements from his mind, or create your own:”

A. Marriage was not the first fallen step, first comes missing Sunday and then not confessing sins. Later comes fornication, then much later comes invalid attempt of marriage. Early it was “I know what the Church teaches about marriage, and accept it as the truth.” After the heart is corrupted it became “I have my own ideas on marriage.”

It appears that the man had not really incorporated the faith into his conscience, as well as being quite weak in commitment. This indicates a lack of awareness.

1. When he was “believing”, was God real to him, as real as the sun in the sky?
2. “The heart is corrupted” is a bit vague. Let me get this right. He felt guilt before, but does not feel guilt now, because he has fallen away from the faith. He has his own ideas about marriage now. On the other hand, he wishes to rejoin the faith. Let us try to put that all together into a statement, please choose one or give an alternative:

“I know what the Church teaches about marriage, and once accepted it as the truth. However, I now refuse to believe that what the Church teaches is true, I now have my own ideas on marriage that are different than what the Church teaches, and I believe them to be true.”

or:

“I know what the Church teaches about marriage, and once accepted it as the truth. I have my own ideas on marriage. They are false, but I now refuse to believe what the Church says is true because I cannot break away from the situation I am in. I am going to sideline my faith for now, because someday it will all work itself out. In the mean time, it is no big deal.”

If you give an alternative, please include the words, “I accepted it as truth” and “I now refuse to believe”, as these words are key to discovering what is going on.

• For number 2, if he is only guessing that he will not die tomorrow, then he does not know whether or not he will die tomorrow."

A. Only the Father know the time of death. He chooses poorly due to depravity of heart.

The “depravity of heart” as an explanation is usually circular:

It is like this:

Q: Why did he choose poorly?
A: Because of depravity of heart.
Q: Why does he have depravity of heart?
A: Because he chose poorly.

Yes, only the Father knows the time of death, but in this instance the man seems pretty certain that his stalling is of no consequence. He may know all of the words that Jesus said about being ready, but he has not taken them to heart! His stalling is irrational, because death is forever and he is choosing death! If he is rational, he either does not take seriously the faith as a whole, or he has a wish to die.

1. Is he rational? If so, does he not take seriously the faith, or instead does he have a wish to die?

 

[chefmomster2]

1. Did the crowd who hung Jesus sin?
2. What would the crowd have to have known in order to know what they were doing when they hung Jesus?

Someone sinned, or forgiveness would have been unnecessary. Jesus released them from culpability for their sin. I have no idea what Jesus’ thoughts were. Nor do I know how he judged them. I don’t know what “them” means. Every person present? A smaller number who he judged to be ignorant? We cannot judge.

According to NABRE:

• [23:34] [Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.”]: this portion of Lk 23:34 does not occur in the oldest papyrus manuscript of Luke and in other early Greek manuscripts and ancient versions of wide geographical distribution. The brackets found around the verse are not mine, but are those present in the NABRE. Since scripture is absolutely infallibly true, this does not mean that this verse is any less valid, but it is interesting, I think. Obviously later writers felt the need to add it, but the original writer did not.

Here there is a bit of a contradiction with “the last shall be first”, but more so the parable of the workers in the vineyard.

Those stories are not about sin. The first is about charity and humility. The “greatest” will act in charity to the “least”. They will humbly serve the Lord, most especially the downtrodden, the sick, the abused by society.

The second is about coming into faith and being rewarded. Those who come to faith early will realize complete happiness in eternity. Those who come late to faith will also experience complete joy. It is a mystery, but from what I understand, this is where the “levels” of heaven come in. Your joy may be more blissful than mine, but I feel content. (Obviously jealousy or disappointment would be incompatible with joy.) Again, it’s a mystery.

Our conscience rewards us with a feeling of righteousness and fulfillment, and this is reflected in the Council’s declaration.

I don’t believe this to be so. The conscience would recognize the acts of good, but the sense of fulfillment, I believe, is a gift of the Spirit. It is the grace we receive for our true charity and it gives us added strength and desire to continue to do the work of Christ.

I lump desire to punish with the workings of the conscience. Desire to punish is so intertwined with our judging of others, etc., that it really seems to function as part of the whole.

I believe we see others through the filter of our own condition and often attribute our own strengths and weaknesses to all. I believe you mentioned that you had a difficulty with being judgmental at one time. You met with the priest who guided you to seek understanding instead. (I couldn’t find the post in the multitudes! If I remember wrongly, I apologize.)

You interpret being judgmental and the desire for punishment to be universally present in man. Certainly no one is immune to these issues, but neither is everyone as afflicted as you believe.

I recognize the evil in men, and I certainly wish for them to be rendered unable to continue their acts. We are certainly right to make such judgments. But, I feel no great desire for punishment. It isn’t in my nature. I prefer to see those who are evil converted. That is the only true way to achieve the Kingdom of God.

An example: I hate the depravity of Isis. I deplore their disgusting and hideous acts of hatred and their perversion of “faith” and “God”. I want them stopped. Some perpetrators may need to be eliminated. Others may be captured, jailed, or otherwise contained. I don’t desire their death, injury, capture or incarceration for its own sake. Punishment is another separate issue. I have little interest in it.

OneSheep: Desire to punish, like judging, is also a triggered reaction, not ordinarily a reasoned statement of will.

It is a bad and sinful habit which has become automatic in those who have not recognized and reformed their behavior in this respect. It is not inherent in our wiring nor is it impossible to significantly overcome it.

People, when watching a movie with an “evil antagonist” have gut reactions, as do all of us when we see horrific things in the news.

A movie can’t be considered here. I am participating in fantasy when I watch a movie. I can judge, punish, etc. I can cheer for the bad guy. It is not reality.

Our desire to punish, as well as the instantaneous recognition of “wrong”, are triggered reactions.

Sometimes good and evil are difficult to distinguish. This is what makes decisions concerning morality challenging.

This is the way a normally functioning conscience works, right

If we knew automatically, you would have no argument at all that we can lack knowledge of the evil of the acts. Conscience has a single general purpose: the determination of good and evil. It does not judge our knowledge or consent. It guides.

 

[chefmomster2]

1. Why has he pridefully chosen to ignore the laws of the Church? If you prefer, explain the specific influence of the “pride”.

Can I be forgiven for bluntness?

You asked Vico these question about the man. How would you answer the same questions about your arguments in this thread? Many of us in Christian love have been concerned about these things…

• You reject the Church teaching that explains the correct interpretation of the definitions involved in these discussions.
• You prefer the teaching of experience to the teaching of the Magisterium.
• You have stated that no human is infallible and that doctrine can misconstrue God as not unconditionally living.

Since your argument depends upon your own personal experience, how is it not a matter of pride?

I can give examples if necessary, but I think you will recognize the ideas I refer to despite any linguistic foul-ups I may have perpetrated.

Again, I beg your forgiveness if my bluntness is hurtful. It is not my intention to cause you any distress.

 

[Vico]

…

A. “I know what the Church teaches about marriage, and accept it as the truth. I am going to con-validate my marriage. I cannot confess yet because i do not have the proper disposition of repentance, that of regret and avoiding the near occasion of sin. I am trying to develop it and pray for it to be so. Being in the near occasion of sin, my civil marriage wife tempts me and a do not resist.”

• You wrote: “Please answer the question, Vico:”
  A. There are levels of learning. In terms of the noun knowing: “the state of being aware or informed”. It may increase of decrease over time depending on what is the subject, and the mental capabilities of the person.
• You wrote: “Are you saying that the man is fully aware of the character of all sinful acts?”
  A. Yes, of his sinful acts; I wrote: “He learned what the Church teaches at a basic level, enough to know the character of sinful acts, and the result.”
• You wrote: “When is “enough” sufficient?”
  A. Sufficient is relative to something. For commission of sin, sufficiency is information, from the conscience or from teaching of the Church, of the sinful character of the act.
• You wrote: “… he knew that the Church said what he was doing was wrong, but he was unconvinced of the wrongness.”
  A. He became corrupted through pride and sensuality, by personal choice, knowing what the Church teaches and also by conscience.
• You wrote: “was God real to him, as real as the sun in the sky?”
  A. Yes, as the creator of the Sun and the law giver.
• You wrote: “Is he rational?”
  A. He is a rational being, subject to passion, which brings man to do what is against reason.

You wrote: “Q: Why did he choose poorly? A: Because of depravity of heart. Q: Why does he have depravity of heart? A: Because he chose poorly.”
A. He had purity, but lost it by not fighting temptation. Once that occurred he had a state of depravity of heart, but not before that, however there is an inclination to sin called concupiesence which is not depravity, rather it is temptation.

 

[simpleas]

I think a person can only realise something is right or wrong by their own conscience, just being told something is the right or wrong thing to do isn’t enough. They may only do a good or bad thing because someone else does it.
In this case a person can’t be k&wr God, or even loving God, at least I don’t think so.

A person can’t intellectually be with God, their emotions must also play a part.

I sometimes think some people believe if they read something and obey it, then they are correct, how they connect in life I don’t know, our emotions should also be obeyed, and I don’t mean our feelings should control us, I mean our gut feeling on somethings can’t always be ignored.

I some times think that my conscience has matured enough, but then I’ll get a little reminder that I’m still learning alot from life.

I think the man commits adultry because there is a underlying problem deep within him.

 

[rinnie]

I think a person can only realise something is right or wrong by their own conscience, just being told something is the right or wrong thing to do isn’t enough. They may only do a good or bad thing because someone else does it.
In this case a person can’t be k&wr God, or even loving God, at least I don’t think so.

A person can’t intellectually be with God, their emotions must also play a part.

I sometimes think some people believe if they read something and obey it, then they are correct, how they connect in life I don’t know, our emotions should also be obeyed, and I don’t mean our feelings should control us, I mean our gut feeling on somethings can’t always be ignored.

I some times think that my conscience has matured enough, but then I’ll get a little reminder that I’m still learning alot from life.

I think the man commits adultry because there is a underlying problem deep within him.

Okay, then why obey the ten commandments, and what was the purpose for God to give us the word made flesh, Jesus Christ to teach and send the Holy Spirit to give the leaders of the Church to Teach and Preach the Good news?

 

[rinnie]

You have stated that you have observed that no one has knowingly and willing rejected God. What I am saying is that this is an inaccurate and misleading statement, as you cannot observe anyone else’s knowledge nor will. So, when you conclude that no one K&W rejects God, it is a invalid conclusion since it is based on incomplete, and I would contend, erroneous assumptions.

Not only that it is complete misunderstanding of the RCC teaching of Mortal Sin. If no one ever knowingly and willingly rejected God, then mortal sin is non-existant.